Shiam Lal Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation

legalcrystal.com/473883

Court

Allahabad

Decided On

May-08-1914

Judge

Banerji, J.

Reported in

25Ind.Cas.347

Appellant

Shiam Lal

Respondent

Emperor

Excerpt:penal cods (act xlv of 1860), section 174 - non-attendance in obedience to summons--conipetency of officer to issue summons. - .....proceedings held in this execution case a tahsildar, who is an assistant collector of the second class, issued a summons to shiam lal to attend his court in order to enable the tahsildar to ascertain whether there was any incumbrance on the property ordered to be sold. shiam lal did not attend and thereupon he was prosecuted and sentenced as stated above, in order to sustain a conviction under section 174 it must be shown that the summons issued was issued by a public servant legally competent as such public servant to issue the same and the accused intentionally omitted to attend in pursuance of the summons. in this case under the rules framed by the local government in regard to the sale of ancestral land, the collector is empowered to summon any person whom he thinks it necessary to.....

Judgment:

Banerji, J.

1. Shiam Lal has been convicted under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 30. The case has been submitted to this Court by the Additional Sessions Judge with the recommendation that the conviction and sentence be set aside. It appears that a decree was transferred to the Collector by the Civil Court for execution inasmuch as the property to be sold was ancestral property. In the course of the proceedings held in this execution case a Tahsildar, who is an Assistant Collector of the second Class, issued a summons to Shiam Lal to attend his Court in order to enable the Tahsildar to ascertain whether there was any incumbrance on the property ordered to be sold. Shiam Lal did not attend and thereupon he was prosecuted and sentenced as stated above, In order to sustain a conviction under Section 174 it must be shown that the summons issued was issued by a public servant legally competent as such public servant to issue the same and the accused intentionally omitted to attend in pursuance of the summons. In this case under the rules framed by the Local Government in regard to the sale of ancestral land, the Collector is empowered to summon any person whom he thinks it necessary to summon for the purpose of ascertaining the matters to be specified in the proclamation of sale and under Rule 44 he can delegate his powers only to an Assistant Collector of the first Class. He could not delegate his authority to an Assistant Collector of the second class and, therefore, the Tahsildar was not legally competent to issue the summons which Shiam Lal did not obey. Furthermore, in this case there is nothing to show that the non-compliance with the summons was intentional. Under these circumstances the conviction of Shiam Lal was illegal. I accordingly set it aside and direct that the fine imposed on him, if paid, be refunded.